Cardinal Raymond Burke was the chief of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura who wrote a letter to Cardinal Bertone, the Secretariat of State. Cardinal Burke received an invitation to participate in the Eucharistic celebration of the Neocatechumenal Way. The letter was dated January 14, 2012. In his letter, Cardinal Burke wrote (the bold and underlined are mine): “As a cardinal and a member of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, I cannot avoid expressing to Your Eminence the surprise this invitation caused me. I do not recall having heard a consultation regarding a particular liturgy for this ecclesial movement. In recent days, I’ve received expressions of concern regarding papal approval, which they already knew about, from various persons, including a respected bishop in the United States. I regarded them as rumor and speculation, but now I’ve discovered they were right.
As a faithful student of the teaching of the Holy Father with regard to liturgical reform, which is fundamental for the New Evangelization, I believe the approval of such liturgical innovations, even after the corrections on the part of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, does not seem coherent with the liturgical magisterium of the pope.”
First of all, Cardinal Burke was referring to the "approval" that was given to the NCW in how they celebrate Mass. In his letter, he admitted that he received concerns from many people of the possibility that the Pope gave the Way approval in how they celebrate Mass. He also admitted that he discovered that these were not rumors or speculations as he first surmised. Cardinal Burke was not saying that the Way disobeyed the Pope. He stated that the "APPROVAL" given to the NCW by the Pope were not consistent with the liturgical Magisterium of the Pope.
Secondly, Cardinal Burke stated: "the approval of such liturgical innovations, even after the corrections on the part of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, does not seem coherent with the liturgical magisterium of the pope.”
By this statement, the Cardinal was referring to the Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way. He could not have been referring to the Catechetical Directory because the Directory of the Way was approved on January 20, 2012, when it was read and made public. Burke's letter was dated six days BEFORE the approval of the Catechetical Directory was made public.
The NCW have been saying all along that they have the approval of the Pope, and Cardinal Burke's letter was referring to the approval rather than to the Mass of the Neocatechumenal Way. So, he was questioning the approval that the Pope had given the NCW.
Finally, it is interesting to note that Cardinal Burke had thought that the "approval" that he has been hearing about was a rumor or speculation at first. But he wrote that he discovered that "they were right." HOW he discovered that the NCW was right about the approval was something he did not mention in his letter.
Where is Cardinal Burke today? He was demoted by Pope Francis because apparently he also questioned Pope Francis. One of the commenters also wrote that Cardinal Burke threatened schism. Last year, Burke was removed from the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops, and later was relieved of his duties as head of the Church's high court. Burke has now been given the ceremonial title of "patron for the knights of Malta."
Dear Diana, you appear to have misunderstood this entire episode. Please allow me to explain. The invitation that Cardinal Burke received was not for a celebration of the Eucharist, but rather an invitation to attend the address of Pope Benedict to the Neocatechumenal Way on 20 January 2012, where, the letter said, the Pope would finally approve the particular aspects of the Mass of the NCW. Please try to understand this - Cardinal Burke was referring to a future event (the rumored upcoming approval) not a past event.
ReplyDeleteIn this link: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/leaks-confirm-ambivalence-about-neocatechumenal-way
the following is stated:
“In it [the letter he sent on 16 January 2012], Burke told Bertone that he had received an invitation to a January 20 celebration of Vatican approval for the Neocatechumenate’s approach to worship.”
The “rumors and speculation” that Cardinal Burke had heard was, again, in regard to the suggested approval of the liturgy of NCW that was rumored to be about to be announced. The same link (above) states:
“Despite rumors that the Vatican would issue blanket approval of all the movement’s liturgical celebrations, a decree from the Pontifical Council for the Laity was read out approving only para-liturgical rites “which do not appear by their nature to be regulated already by the liturgical books of the church.”
When Cardinal Burke wrote: "the approval of such liturgical innovations, even after the corrections on the part of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, does not seem coherent with the liturgical magisterium of the pope", he was referring to the letter of Cardinal Arinze, prefect of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which had previously given "the Holy Father's decisions" in relation to the celebration of Mass in the NCW. He was not referring to the Statutes, as the Statutes were not issued or corrected by the Congregation for Divine Worship.
The full story came to light as a part of the “Vatileaks” scandal, wherein the perpetrator acted out of a false sense of loyalty to Pope Benedict. This story, among others was intended to show that Pope Benedict’s authority had been compromised by powerful forces in Rome. Pope Benedict once pointed to the doorway to his papal office and remarked to a trusted friend “My authority stops there”
The letter that Cardinal Burke found on his desk, inviting him to attend this upcoming “approval” – an approval that never happened, was presumably placed there by someone in the curia, who was sympathetic to the NCW cause. Sandro Magister claims that the invitation was prepared by Cardinal Rylko. See the following link: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350217?eng=y
“What had happened was that the pontifical council for the laity headed by Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko had prepared the text for a degree of blanket approval of all the liturgical and extra-liturgical celebrations of the Neocatechumenal Way, to be made public the January 20 on the occasion of a meeting scheduled between the pope and the Way.
The decree was redacted according to the guidelines of the congregation for divine worship, headed by Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera. The founders and leaders of the Way, Francisco "Kiko" Argüello and Carmen Hernández, were told about it and joyfully told their followers about the imminent approval.
All unbeknownst to the pope.
Benedict XVI found out about the text of the decree a few days before the meeting on January 20.
He found it illogical and mistaken. He ordered that it be scrapped and rewritten according to his guidelines.”
Dear Anonymous at 12:46 am,
DeleteI stand corrected. You are correct that it was an invitation to attend the January 20th celebration of the approval of the Catechetical Directory.
However, he made this statement: " I believe the approval of such liturgical innovations, even after the corrections on the part of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, does not seem coherent with the liturgical magisterium of the pope.”
I do not think he was referring to the Catechetical Directory in the above statement. It appears that he was referring to the Statutes of the Way, which was approved in 2008. He was saying that the approval of the NCW liturgy of the Mass even after the corrections were not consistent with the liturgical magisterium. He is not saying that the NCW disobeyed, but that the liturgy we practiced was not consistent with the liturgical magisterium.
No diana. Do not stand corrected. This bloggers argument is spurious. I'm going to claim the opposite: Benedict retired because he could not reign in these overpowerful princely cardinals who like Burke manipulate the papacy into doing things it does not want. Like for example unity with lefevre.
DeleteRules....rules....rules.....interpretations...explanations.....yes....yes...yes....no....no....no.
DeleteLord...only you can open my heart, I am begging for your grace not to question but to obey. Speak to me Father today.
my prayer this morning.....
Right, so your proposition that he was referring to some past approval was incorrect. He was referring to an "expected approval" - that never came. This should finally convince you that what you have been told about the approval of the NCW practises at Mass is incorrect. Because if you approval had actually been given verbally by Pope Benedict, then he would have confirmed it at that address. He did not.
DeleteCardinal Burke was referring to the "corrections by the Congregation for Divine Worship". These were given in the letter by Cardinal Arinze, and included in the Statutes. They are written corrections that were meant to guide the NCW to "follow faithfully the liturgical books". He was saying that even after the corrections had been given, there are still issues with the liturgy.
Also, you have said a number of times that Pope Francis discontinued the investigation into the NCW Mass that was started by Pope Benedict. There is no argument about that. But why do you think :Pope Benedict would have requested another investigation if, as you have been told by your leaders, that approval had been given? It makes not sense.
I think you have a moral obligation to finally admit that the NCW did not receive any approval byond what is written in the Statutes, and that you, and all the NCW, have been deceived.
Dear Diana, can you see now why wwe can not accept the claim that the NCW has been given approval for anything other that what is written in the Statutes? Because if it had, there would have bene no need for this "expected approval" on 20 January 2012. Perhaps you were told approval had been given because it was expected to be given. But it never was. You need to find this out yourself and advise us accordingly
DeleteCardinal Burke did well in expressing his deep concern. Rylko and Canizares wanted to make Pope Benedict look a powerless puppet in this game of Byzantine power grab. Even Kiko and the whole Neocatechumenal Way was used as mere weaponry to attack the authority of Vatican. However Burke quickly alerted Benedict and therefore the Pope had sufficient time to scrap the blanket approval and thus save the papacy from the manipulations of the cardinals.
DeleteAs a revenge, the Burke letter was leaked to the press so to make Benedict look ridiculous. This Byzantine plot forced Pope Benedict to resign if he wanted to maintain the dignity and valor of the papacy. Again, he chose to do it right by retiring. Now we have Pope Francis who has to tame and pull out the same burning thorn pushed deeply in the back of the Holy Mother Church.
You are supposed to follow the liturgical magisterium. You disobey if you don't follow it.
DeleteIt's like him saying...they are not following the norms as ordered, then you reply....he said I'm not following, he did not say I'm disobeying.
Good grief, anon at 7.59! Diana has the courage to face facts and be docile to the truth about this, and you tell her she is wrong to do so? Did you actually read the articles? Did you actually take the time and have the inclination to find out the truth about this episode?
DeleteIt is not that difficult to understand, except if your prejudice gets in the way. How, pray tell, is the argument "spurious"? There's no value in just asserting it so, if you have no evidence or even a basic argument against it.
Did you not notice that in this case Pope Benedict agreed with Cardinal Burke's assessment? It was not Cardinal Burke, but other forces in the Vatican that appeared to be attempting to manipulate the Pope on this matter.
How about we give you the rest of the day to think of a reasonable response to the facts presented here, rather than a rush to irrational judgement?
Its a bit like Anon at 8.57 am. Listen to this
"I am begging for your grace not to question but to obey."
This implies that one can't question and obey at the same time; that questioning is in opposition to obedience. This is what is called a "false dichotomy".
Whoever tells you that intellect or rational thinking is from the devil, reveals himself to be a fraud.
Dear Anonymous at 9:32 am,
DeletePope Benedict only ordered one investigation, and nothing ever came of it. The letters were pouring in; therefore, there should already be enough evidence to convince the Pope. But nothing ever came of the investigation. By the time Pope Francis took over, he ceased the investigation into the Way.
Cardinal Burke was also saying that the approval of the liturgy was not consistent with the liturgical magisterium. He also disagreed with the Statutes approval.
Dear Anonymous at 9:51 am,
DeleteIf the NCW was truly not given approval, I doubt that Pope Francis would cease the investigation without first looking into it. The Vatican is fully aware of how the NCW does its celebrations, and they could have reprimanded Kiko for it. Instead, the Pope confirmed Kiko as consulter for the Pontifical Council for the laity for another five years.
Dear Anonymous @8:57AM--
DeleteYes, whenever you have a group of people there must be 'rules to live by'...that's what identifies a civilised society; it separates humans from animals. And, yes, unfortunately that comes with interpretations of the rules, depending on your culture, experience, or language.
All this back and forth does get tiresome at times, but I, for one, appreciate it because I am learning a lot. It helps if the tone is respectful and the claims are backed by resources that can be researched.
Your prayer is one that many are saying. But I believe He DOES want us to question so that we don't follow blindly--He knows too well how Satan can manipulate. He gave us a brain to think about what is put before us, and to make sound decisions. Read, listen, reflect, pray on what is put before you.
Dear Anonymous at 12:51 pm,
DeleteFollowing the Pope is one thing, but it appears that Cardinal Burke was also against the approval of the Statutes.
Dear Diana, please confirm the following as I am finding it rather difficult to follow your position.
DeleteYou have said a number of times that the approval to take communion the way you do, for example, was given to you back in 2008. You said that you were told that verbal approval had been given by Pope Benedict. Is this correct?
If so, why did Pope Benedict not codify this formally in writing when he had this chance in 2012? Instead of doing so , he addressed the NCW on 20 January 2012 and once again stated that they must "follow faithfully" the liturgical books of the Roman Rites, except in regard to the explicit concessions given in the Statutes.
Do you now concede that when Cardinal Burke was referring to the "approval", he was meaning the "approval" rumored and expected by the NCW to be given by Pope Benedict on 20 January 2012?
Why would this future, rumored approval need to be given if it had already been given as you have claimed?
You seem to be happy to accept that Pope Benedict referred the different practises of the NCW Eucharist for investigation, firstly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (that investigates what is to be believed) and secondly to the Congregation for Divine Worship (that investigates how we are to worship). Can you confirm that this is your understanding too?
Why do you say that Pope Benedict made these formal requests for investigation, if as you have said, he had some years before given his approval for the NCW to do as they do in the Eucharist?
Finally, why do you say that Cardinal Burke disagreed with the Statutes approval? I can see no reference made by him about the Statutes. He does clearly say that were the Pope to give approval to the NCW Eucharistic practises (he obviously didn't believe at that stage that approval had been given), that it would be inconsistent with what the Pope had previously taught about the liturgy.
Are you really sticking to this line that Cardinal Burke was admitting that approval had already been given? Because if so, we can write to him and ask him to clarify it - English is his first language and I understand he is very willing to reply to queries. Thankyou
Dear Anonymous at 3:52 pm,
DeleteThis is how Cardinal Burke ended his letter:
As a faithful student of the teaching of the Holy Father with regard to liturgical reform, which is fundamental for the New Evangelization, I believe the approval of such liturgical innovations, even after the corrections on the part of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, does not seem coherent with the liturgical magisterium of the pope.”
In that statement above, he was actually referring to the approval of the Statutes. The Eucharist of the Way was already approved in 2008, and it is no secret as to how we celebrate the Eucharist. He believes that the approval of the liturgical innovations, even after the corrections were made were not consistent with the Liturgical Magisterium of the Pope. The Cardinal was disagreeing with the Way's liturgy even after the corrections were made because he felt they were not consistent with the Liturgical Magisterium of the Pope. That is what he wrote and how I read it.
Dear Diana at 3.52pm, yes I can see that how you are reading it is the problem here. Perhaps you can look at it slightly differently, more in keeping with the understanding given in the articles quoted above.
DeletePlease point out which of the following statements does not accord with you:
1. Cardinal Burke's stated reason for writing this letter to Cardinal Bertone was that in mid January 2012 he found on his desk an invitation to attend un upcoming address by Pope Benedict to the NCW, scheduled for 20 January 2012.
2. This invitation discovered by Cardinal Burke stated that this occasion (ie 20 January address) would be the time that the NCW would receive full approval for its liturgical practises.
3. Cardinal Burke expressed his surprise at this announcement, as being a member of the relevant congregations, and head of the Apostolic Signatura, he had not heard of any imminent approval.
4. He writes to Bertone, upon discovering that an approval might be about to be given, something he had previously dismissed as rumor and speculation.
5. He writes urgently, as it is only a few days away.
6. Cardinal Burke refers to "corrections on the part of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments". These corrections were first given in the letter from Cardinal Arinze, and then codified in the Statutes.
7. Cardinal Burke remarks that even after these corrections have been made, the present manner in which the NCW conducts the liturgy of the Eucharist is inconsistent with the teaching of the Pope on liturgical matters. As you say, it is no secret as to how the NCW celebrate the Eucharist. This is what Cardinal Burke is referring to.
8. The Cardinal suggests that the corrections were not being followed. This suggestion is supported by the Pope's response on the letter back to Bertone, wherein he asks Bertone to have Cardinal Burke refer his concerns to the Cong for Divine Worship.
9. Pope Benedict addresses the NCW on 20 January 2012 and once again instructs them to follow the liturgical books in everything except those few things that had been approved in writing (the "explicit concessions").
Now, if Cardinal Burke believed at that time that the NCW had actually received approval to conduct the liturgy the way you do, there would not have been any point writing to the Pope with such urgency, prior to the address on 20 January.
As the articles point out, Cardinal Burke is trying to interrupt an effort by the NCW people in the Vatican to have the Pope give an approval, meaning of course that there hadn't been an approval up until that time, other that those explicit concessions.
If Cardinal Burke had included the word "pending" or the word "rumored" in the sentence you quote above, you could not read it the way you do.
ie "As a faithful student of the teaching of the Holy Father with regard to liturgical reform, which is fundamental for the New Evangelization, I believe the *pending* *rumored* approval of such liturgical innovations ... does not seem coherent with the liturgical magisterium of the pope"
when Burke says "it is outside of the pope's liturgical magisterium" is he saying the pope does not have the authority in this matter?
DeleteDiana @ 3:51,
DeleteThat is irrelevant to what 12:51 is saying.
Dear Anonymous at 5:00 pm,
DeleteI think the problem here is that we are only seeing parts of the letter and not the entire letter. This is what you are suggesting he wrote:
Ie. "As a faithful student of the teaching of the Holy Father with regard to liturgical reform, which is fundamental for the New Evangelization, I believe the *rumored* approval of such liturgical innovation, even after the corrections on the part of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, does not seem coherent with the liturgical magisterium of the pope."
You need to add the rest of what he said and not leave it out. Do you see the problem? It does not make sense if he was referring to the Directory.
Anonymous February 10, 2015 at 3:45 PM
DeleteBefore priest...before bibles..before churches....there was the word of God in which the early Christian church was built.
we cannot fulfill the 10 commandments nor love our God with all our might.....love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Rather than face the question.....do we obey or do I disobey?....truthfully, we hide within the rules and regulations of man where the excuses are found that justified.....lessen the guilt of being sinners.
You speak about civilized man.......as long as there is abortion....the killing of babies in the mothers womb.........please don't.
Dear anon at 10.32, may I respectfully suggest you put your glasses on? Cardinal Burke did not say "it is outside of the pope's liturgical magisterium". He actually said it "does not seem coherent with the liturgical magisterium of the pope.”
DeleteImagination is a dangerous thing. Literacy is important too.
Dear Diana,
ReplyDeleteIn defense of Cardinal Burke, may I present the following excerpt from the National Catholic Reporter December 7, 2014:
Joshua J. McElwee
Sunday's interview was conducted by Elisabetta Piqué, a Rome-based Argentine journalist who has also authored a biography of Francis titled Francis: Life and Revolution.
"Asked about U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, who Francis recently moved from his former position as the head of the Vatican's highest court to a position with the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta, Francis says he and Burke spoke about making the change together before the October Synod of Bishops.
On that issue, the pope states:
One day Cardinal Burke asked me what he would be doing as he had still not been confirmed in his position, in the legal sector, but rather had been confirmed donec alitur provideatur.
And I answered, "Give me some time because we are thinking of a legal restructuring....
I told him nothing had been done about it yet and that it was being considered. After that the issue of the Order of Malta cropped up and we needed a smart American who would know how to get around and I thought of him for that position.
I suggested this to him long before the synod. I said to him "This will take place after the synod because I want you to participate in the synod as dicastery Head." As the chaplain of Malta he wouldn´t have been able to be present.
He thanked me in very good terms and accepted my offer, I even think he liked it. Because he is a man that gets around a lot, he does a lot of travelling and would surely be busy there. It is therefore not true that I removed him because of how he behaved in the synod."
Hopefully, Pope Francis' words will silence untruths about Cardinal Burke and his new position. And, we, myself included, can all learn from Cardinal Burke to obey in humble obedience.
Diana,
ReplyDeleteBurke never "threatened schism". This is a false rumor. He wasn't "demoted" either, he had been reassigned to another position. It certainly wasn't because he "questioned" the Pope.
Burke is a faithful apostle of the Catholic Church. Please don't demean him because he questioned something a cardinal has every right to question.
Dear nagyszakall,
DeleteCardinal Burke said he would resist the Pope if the Pope were to change the Church practice in allowing communion to those in second marriages.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-i-will-resist-the-pope-should-he-contravene-doctrine
Other news report show that he threatened schism:
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/hearing-cardinal-burke
Dear Diana,
DeleteAll of the Catholic faithful should resist any pope who goes against what the Church always and everywhere believed (i.e. doctrine and not just practice). That is what the Cardinal was referring to. The commonweal article you referred to speaks of the possibility of schism quoting Ross Douthat of the New York Times and not Cardinal Burke. Please read your sources carefully and make your statements even more carefully.
Dear Nagyszakall,
DeleteIt is God who guides His Church through the Pope. The Pope in not impeccable and can sin like anyone else. However, the Pope is infallible in matters of morals and faith, and he was given the authority to bind and loose. I doubt that the Pope would change the morals regarding divorce. Reconciliation between husband and wife is always preferable over divorce. Nevertheless, I think that even the Church can forgive an adulterer.
The above mentioned letter of Card. Burke was leaked by the infamous "crow" in the scandalous course of events which is generally referred to as the "vatileaks". It is a note addressed to the Holy Father alone, not to the general public.
ReplyDeleteIn it Card. Burke expresses concerns over certain rumors that by the time of writing the letter he thought were confirmed to be true, because he got an invitation to the rumored event. Four days after this note this was clarified, the rumor was false, there was indeed going to be a meeting and an approval but it was not at all about the Sacred Liturgy but about the Catechetical Directory and extra liturgical celebrations.
There is no reason to condemn Card. Burke for his concern and expressing it to the Holy Father. What is to be condemned is gossip (in the Vatican and outside of it) and the malignant theft of one's personal documents in order to cause harm.
Diana, I think you are mistaken in your assessment of Card. Burke and his reaction to this unfounded rumor. Perhaps he overreacted by writing to the Pope, perhaps not, but the only mistake he made was to think that the rumors have been confirmed to be true. This lasted a maximum of four days, when the January 20, 2012 approval was publicly announced. The rest is speculation. Otherwise Card. Burke is a faithful bishop who defends the orthodoxy of Catholic teaching and liturgy. I don't think it is right to bash him for reacting to what at the time he believed was something wrong. Who knows what exactly the gossipers told him about what the approval was going to be? As an example, read any article of Sandro Magister about the NCW, you will see that it is full of half truths and half lies (the sacred chalice being passed around and focaccia bread, etc). Some people must have told some scary lies about an upcoming approval of monkey liturgy, and then he got an invitation to the ceremony...
"Perhaps he overreacted by writing to the Pope, perhaps not, but the only mistake he made was to think that the rumors have been confirmed to be true."
DeleteWhat do yo mean by that? Was there an invitation put on his desk by Card Rylko or not? Was this an invitation to attend the "expected approval of the liturgy of the NCW" or not?
Dear nagyszakall, Diana maintains that the NCW received verbal approval from Pope Benedict in 2008 to do what they do in the Eucharist - eg sit down to consume. I have a few questions for you. Is verbal approval sufficient for variations of this sort? Did the NCW actually receive such an approval. If so, why did Pope Benedict not confirm this approval in 2008, as was rumored to occur in the invitation found on Cardinal Burke's desk?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:20 am,
DeleteIt appears that Cardinal Burke was against the approval of the Statutes. In 2008, we were told to receive communion standing up, and then to sit down. We take communion at the same time as the priest, and we consume the Body of Christ sitting down. This was told to the communities, and we told that these instructions came from Kiko who received the same instructions from the Pope.
Has no one seen the Eucharist that John Paul II celebrated in Porto San Giorgio when he sent families in mission? its on youtube.
DeleteDiana, this is not right. Kiko could not have received the SAME instructions from Pope Benedict for obvious reason. You say
Delete"we were told to receive communion standing up, and then to sit down."
Well, this is exactly the trick that was played on the expense of Pope Benedict. Even if the standing up part might have been said, the sit down part was not told by the Pope for sure! The Statutes say the communion is received while in standing position. Benedict could not have said "sit down" under any circumstances, because this would have immediately falsified his own authority! He just did not say so. Rather, he resigned and retired to have some peace.
Dear Anonymi on February 11, 2015 at 9:15 and 9:20 AM,
DeleteThe invitation that Card. Burke received wasn't leaked along with the note he sent to the Pope. We don't know what stood on the invitation, but it would surprise me if the invitation for the event of approving the Catechetical Directory and certain extra liturgical celebrations would say something else. It seems quite plausible, however, that if the cardinal hears rumors about some approval of a "Neocatechumenal liturgy" (something which doesn't exist but obviously not everyone is aware of the fact, gossipers certainly not), and then an invitation to an event of approval is received by him, he would think that the rumors then must be in fact true. And certainly, rumors of the event taking place were true, only they were wrong about what was going to be approved exactly.
Dear Diana,
DeleteI am not aware of any statement on the part of Card. Burke regarding the approval of the Statute. He was concerned about some rumors that he thought were in fact true. We don't know how the rumors were exactly worded, but we can't exclude the possibility that the Cardinal heard stuff that was in fact alarming. His reaction to some rumors does not in any way make me think that he was against the approval of the Statute. I think you are mistaken.
Dear Nagyszakall, thankyou for your reply. The only issue I can see with your suggestion is the response of Pope Benedict to the letter of Cardinal Burke. If Cardinal Burke had made an erroneous leap of logic, to assume that the upcoming approval was in regard to the Eucharistic celebration, why would the Pope have written back to Bertone "Return to Card. Bertone, inviting Card. Burke to perhaps translate these very correct observations in the Congregation for Divine Worship"
DeleteI emphasise the term "very correct observations", which seems to contradict what you have suggested. It is not irrelevant that Pope Benedict subsequently referred the matter of the NCW liturgy to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. One would have assumed that the question of liturgical practises would be referred to the office of Divine Worship, not the CDF, so this raises some serious questions.
In any case, can I ask you to comment on Diana's assertion that verbal approval was given to the NCW from Pope Benedict in 2008, including the permission to sit back down and consume the Blessed Sacrament, and for the simultaneous communion of priest and lay faithful.
Do you believe this to be true? And secondly, do you accept that the so-called "verbal approval" is a valid and accepted method used by the Vatican in relation to variations in the liturgy? Finally, do you have an explanation (Diana seems to not have one) for the Pope not formalising this alleged verbal approval when he had the opportunity in 2012? Thanks
Cardinal Burke was not demoted from the signatura. This is a term office and he aleady served longer than the appointment time period.
ReplyDelete"The head of the Vatican’s highest court also told Breitbart Tuesday the Catholic Church risks schism if bishops are seen to “go contrary” to the Church’s established and unchangeable dogmas in the months ahead." (breitbart.com)
ReplyDeletethe leader of the ultra conservatives tells the pope that the conservatives will separate, not if the bishop actually do "go contrary" (which I don't believe will happen) but if they just SEEM to.
Any other way to interpret?
Yes, you quote the word "risks" and translate it as "will". You quote the phrase "seen to" and translate it as "just seem".
DeleteThe church was dying because intellectual cardinals, bishops and priest at the Vatican led very comfortable lives.
DeleteNo more did they proclaim the Gospel, no more did they spend their days with the poor...the suffering.
No wonder why Francis is so disliked.
I wonder when the last time benavente, paul, and the other priest went on two by two with nothing in their pockets?
Diana, the world, just as the Cardinal Burke affair, is way more complex than you make it look. Please, no not try to oversimplify complicated issues. It is not enough to say "we do not judge anyone' when you make judgments about anyone whom you dislike anywhere all any time. Preaching water and drinking wine?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 7:55 am,
DeleteDo you know the difference between judging a person and expressing an opinion?
DeleteAnonymous February 13, 2015 at 7:55 AM
I would agree that the Burke affair is more complex but we are not following the affairs of men but of Jesus Christ.
The gospel is simple enough for all to understand the terms of salvation and the requirements of Christian living, all are condemned who do not accept the terms of salvation and live as the simple gospel of Christ requires them to live.
The Christian life is a simple life and all of its requirements are simple. “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; For I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matt. 11:28-30).
I believe a child can understand the Gospel......we can blame man for making it complex anonymous
DeleteRe: Anonymous February 22 340PM
The Mass I saw on youtube has now been removed. I found that puzzling, until I read the whole article and comments for:
"WHAT ABOUT JOHN PAUL II'S 1988 NEO CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARIST?" on Junglewatch.
The date of the video is 1988;and, the prohibition on receiving the sacred host while seated was on Dec. 1, 2005.
Here is an excerpt from the above-mentioned article:
"After Vatican II there was an explosion of what the church calls "ecclesial communities", often founded by lay persons, and often very experimental. The Pontifical Council for the Laity lists over 100 of these kinds of groups which it oversees. The Neocatechumenal Way is just one of them.
In the post Vatican II confusion, there were many liturgical experiments, and often in regular parishes, not just these fringe communities. In fact, liturgical experiments persist despite recent efforts by Rome to bring them under control with the updating of the GIRM, the promulgation of Redemptionis Sacramentum, and several other documents which both prescribe and proscribe what can and cannot be done in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
In the wake of Vatican II and in its so-called "spirit", the Church, and even the pope as we can see, permitted and even joined in many of these liberalities. However, their participation was not done to authenticate these things, but, as good popes do, to experience them in order to sift them, to find what is good, and to allow themselves to be informed by the Spirit in order to bring these many groups and their practices into the bosom of the Church.
After several years of studying and participating in the celebrations of the NCW, and after many meetings with its founders, John Paul II, in 2002, ordered a period of "ad experimentum" for the Neocatechumenal Way. This was probably occasioned by the both the growth of the NCW and with that growth a growing number of complaints from pastors and bishops as well.
The "ad experimentum" period was imposed on the NCW in order to study it more closely and to bring it inline with the Church in order to preserve the oneness of the Church while yet admitting particular charisms. This is nothing new. The Franciscans were just a bunch of raggedy radical medieval followers of Jesus Christ until their group grew large enough for Rome to notice and "regularize" them.
This regularization process was what Rome was in the midst of doing during the "ad experimentum" period (2002-2007), when in 2005, Rome ordered the leaders of the NCW to conform its communion rite to the liturgical books. ......................................."
This article/explanation makes sense. Please read the whole article and comments. All NCW members should be informed. May truth prevail.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_7UmiipNo
Deleteit has not been removed
Thank you for the Utube reference.
DeleteI watched it. May I mention a few observations.
I didn't hear any echoes. Were they deleted?
I found it interesting that the "priest/attendant - sorry I don't know who he was, but he was standing on the left-hand side of the pope at the "table." (I figure he most likely came from Rome with the Pope.) During the Eucharistic Prayer, he knelt while the rest stood; and, Pope John Paul II genuflected profoundly before our Lord and Savior.
In the comment section, it was noted that the Pope's microphone was shut off when the Pope started to sing the Our Father in Latin. This is true. The NCW took over with their version of Our Father.
To me this whole experience must have been very painful for the Holy Father. Read his Eucharistic Encyclical and the follow-up Redemptionis Sacramentum. This is a holy man who understands the Eucharist. St. John Paul II, pray for us.
Dear Anonymous at 5:46 pm,
DeleteThe echoes are not recorded due to the fact that these are personal testimonies from the brothers. Also, the NCW does not have any new version of the "Our Father." We say the same "Our Father" as all Catholics do in any Mass. Therefore, the microphone could not be shut off for that reason. The Father did not experience it as painful. He gave the NCW his blessings.
Pope John Paul II celebrated the Mass with the NCW once in twenty-seven years. Given the political nature of the NCW and the pressure they are known to bring to bear, this is a significant fact. Why did he only celebrate once? There are those in the Vatican who have claimed that the Holy Father was not happy with the way the NCW hijacked control of that Mass, hence his own reluctance to celebrate with them again. Note too, that the Pope did not sit to take his own communion. That is rather telling.
DeleteWith regard to the "Our Father", does the NCW sing the Latin Pater Noster? I believe anon at 5.46 was making the point that the Pope began to sing it in Latin and was over-ruled by the NCW.
All of this occurred many years prior to the issuing of the definitive statutes and the clarifications and corrections by the Holy See, in 2005, of the limited concessions, and as the previous poster pointed out, the documents Ecclesia de Eucharistia and Redemptionis Sacramentum.
Dear Anonymous at 10:53 am,
DeleteThe Pope is a very busy man, and the NCW was fortunate to have him there celebrating with them. The fact that he celebrated in the Way only once does not mean that he opposed the Way. The Pope gave the NCW his blessings, but also knew that there needs to be a few corrections, which is why the Way was in experimentium for five years. In time, the way the NCW receives Holy Communion has changed. Since 2008, the NCW now stands to receive Holy Communion. We sit consuming the Body of Christ, and the NCW received permission from the Pope to do this. The Our Father is not sung in Latin, but in the vernacular. I also do not see any comment saying that the microphone was turned off while the Pope began the Our Father prayer in Latin.
I have a question for you Diana. You say that the Pope "gave the NCW his blessings". How does a pope give "blessings" to a collection of spiritual goods? And while we are on that, can you list for us what these "spiritual goods" actually are, at least in your understanding? Thanks
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:48 pm,
DeleteWhen I say that the Pope has given us his blessings, it means that he has given us his approval, his endorsement, and support. The "spiritual goods" that one finds in the Way are priestly vocations along with vocations called to the convent to be a nun. Other spiritual goods are the mission families and itinerants who are willing to give up everything to preach the Gospel in foreign countries. Another spiritual goods are the changes manifested in some members.
Just remember that Pope John Paul II gave his "approval, endorsement and support" to Fr Maciel and the legionnaires, too.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:48 pm,
DeleteIt is unfair and unjust to compare the NCW to the Legionaires of Christ. Their founder is not the same as our founder. Their founder was found to be a child molester. Kiko is not a child molester and has always been in touch with the the Pope.
Dear Diana at 1.48, the point is that Pope John Paul II was mistaken in his support of this person. Therefore the support of Pope John Paul II or any pope for that matter, is not sufficient to prove their integrity or the veracity of their teaching.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:33 pm,
DeleteMy point is that it is a mistake to treat ALL Founders as though they were the Founder of the Legionaires of Christ. Just because Pope John Paul II made a mistake in supporting the Founder of the Legionaires of Christ does NOT mean that EVERYTHING that the Pope supports is a mistake.
In the same way......just because a few priests committed child molestation does NOT mean that ALL priests cannot be trusted. This kind of thinking is an injustice to those priests and founders who remain true to the Church's mission.
Gosh, logic is just a bit out of reach for you sometimes, isn't it? I did not suggest that "all founders" should be treated the same. Your logic seems to be:
Deletea. Anything the pope endorses is great
b. The pope endorses Kiko and the NCW
c. kiko and the NCW are great.
I am questioning the first premise here - namely that the pope's endorsement does not guarantee "greatness".
Dear Anonymous at 11:42 am,
DeleteYou were the one who brought up the Legionaires of Christ and compared it to the NCW and also compared their founder to the founder of the NCW. By the same token......the Pope's endorsement does not guarantee "failure." What is important is that we do have the support of the Pope, who is the Vicar of Christ.
Yes, so did maciel. So your point is?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:16 pm,
DeleteMy point remains the same. One should not judge all founders based on the failure of one founder and his movement. Having the support of the Pope is the most important because he is the Vicar of Christ. The fact that the founder of the Legionaries of Christ deceived the Pope is the fault of that founder.... not the Pope.
The fact that the pope was deceived and ultimately gave support to someone who didn't deserve it, is proof that the support of the pope is not enough, on its own, to show how "great" something is. Of course, its better to be supported by the pope than not. No one is arguing that. Neither am I arguing that it was "the pope's fault". Finding fault is not important here.
DeleteBut, you seem to by saying that *because* the pope "supports and endorses" Kiko and the NCW, there is a guarantee that Kiko and the NCW are "good". That is the breakdown in your logic Diana. I know its subtle but please try to expand your narrow mind a little.
Dear Anonymous at 12:53 pm,
DeleteYou and I agree that having the support of the Pope is a good thing. It is better to have the support of the Pope. I never claim that the NCW is "great" nor did I say that it is a guarantee that the NCW is good for everyone. In my blogsite, I have stated many times that the NCW is not for everyone. It is good for some people just as the Legion of Mary is also good for some people. The Charismatic Catholics are also good for some people. The NCW would be for some people while others prefer the Charismatic Catholics, etc.
Diana, please try to stick to the matter under discussion. You often make this mistake in logic where the supposed "support of the pope" equates to meaning that there is no possibility of error in the NCW - or in Kiko's theology for example.
Delete"I never claim that the NCW is "great""
This entire blog is predicated on this claim, Diana
Dear Anonymous at 1:53 pm,
DeleteActually, YOU assumed that "support of the pope" equates to meaning that there is no possibility of error in the NCW In this blogsite, I have stated many times, that the way we received communion has been corrected since 2008.
Once again this guy is claimming that kiko has deceived the pope. Didn't we deal with this in another post?
DeleteHow is it that brains seem to stop working properly when one joins the NCW? Whether Kiko has deceived the Pope is not the point here. Simply put, the endorsement of the pope, while preferable to his disendorsement, is not enough to guarantee that a person, group or teaching is free-of-error, or worthy of adherence
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:32 pm,
DeleteHow is the NCW full of error when all the Catechists have been doing in the catechesis was follow the Catechetical Directory almost word for word......a directory approved by Rome to be free of errors.
Whether the pope endorses or not is EXACTLY the point. If you do not understand that you cannot call yourself catholic.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:49 pm,
DeleteYou did not answer my question. You stated that "the endorsement of the pope, while preferable to his disendorsement, is not enough to guarantee that a person, group or teaching is free-of-error, or worthy of adherence".
So, how is the NCW full of error when all the Catechists have been doing in the catechesis was follow the Catechetical Directory almost word for word......a directory approved by Rome to be free of errors?
Dear Diana at 1.32. Can you point out where I said that the NCW was "full of error"?
DeleteIn any case maybe you can show me where and how Rome apparently "approved" the directory to be "free of errors"? Which document are you referring to that says the directory is free of errors?
Dear Diana at 3.01. I think Anon at 2.49 is on your side. Certainly not the same anon as 1.32.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 3:06 pm,
DeleteThe Catholic Church teaches that the Pope and the teaching Mafisterium is infallible in regards to "faith and morals." The Catechetical Directory contains the "catechesis" (church teachings). ALL TEACHINGS of the Church are free of error because the teachings are based on "faith and morals" - the only two things which is infallible in the Church.
Dear Diana, is this really what they teach you? That the Catechetical Directory is infallible? You should ask for your money back. This is so totally wrong. Ask your Archbishop, or write to Rome - you will find that this understanding in entirely mistaken.
DeleteThe teaching of the Church in regard to faith and morals is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit, as you say. This is not some general statement though, as the authority of the Church in this regard is exercised very carefully and in a formal way.
So there are particular and certain circumstances where the Church invokes "infallibility". The catechism is not one of these. Of course it contains infallible pronouncements, but it also contains much that is not infallible.
Please see the following link : http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cfm
Now, this is in regard to the official Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You seem to think that because the Holy See insisted on references to the CCC being inserted into the NCW directory, this is now proof of its infallibility. Oh my Gosh! This is so scary, that you actually have been told that!
You are so wrong, and you ought to stop this blog until you are sufficiently educated on Catholic Doctrine, before you sow confusion or put at risk the salvation of souls by your erroneous understanding.
Dear Anonymous at 4:34 pm,
DeleteYou stated: "So there are particular and certain circumstances where the Church invokes "infallibility". The catechism is not one of these. Of course it contains infallible pronouncements, but it also contains much that is not infallible."
You say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains infallible pronouncement, but it ALSO contains much that is NOT infallible." So here is my question. Can you give me one example of which Catechism is NOT infallible as you mentioned?? Fallible, by the way, means ERROR. So please point to me where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that you find is fallible.
As to your weblink that you provided, this is what it stated below (Capitalization is mine):
What is a catechism?
A catechism is a text which contains the fundamental Christian TRUTHS formulated in a way that facilitates their understanding.
All the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains ALL the fundamental Christian TRUTHS. Why? Because the Catechism is based on the teachings of "faith and morals" - the two things that is "infallible." (without error). God leads His Church into ALL TRUTHS. All teachings and doctrines of the Church are infallible truths in that they contain the teachings of faith and morals. The Catechetical Directory of the NCW is the same way. It contains the catechesis of faith and morals.
So, now that you believe that the Catechism of the Catholic has things in it that are fallible (with error), please show me one of them. Fallible, by the way.....means "error." So, show me this "error" that you find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Oh dear. Here's a fuller excerpt of the bit you quote:
Delete"Because the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine in a complete yet summary way, it naturally contains the infallible doctrinal definitions of the popes and ecumenical councils in the history of the Church. It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined in these most solemn forms. This does not mean that such teaching can be disregarded or ignored. Quite to the contrary, the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine as an organic whole and as it is related to Christ who is the center. A major catechism, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, presents a compendium of Church teachings and has the advantage of demonstrating the harmony that exists among those teachings"
Let me repeat this section: "It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined in these most solemn forms"
Dear Diana, most of the teachings of the Catholic Church are proposed non-infallibly. So the catechism contains some things which have been proposed as infallible, and many things that have not been proposed as infallible. It doesn't mean that these things are "wrong" or an "error" as you suggest. It means that they don't have the weight of a pronouncement of being "infallible".
In the Introduction to the Catechism, Cardinal Ratzinger writes:
"What significance the Catechism really holds for the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, with which the Pope promulgated it on October 11, 1992–exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council: "I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith."
The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church"
In other words, each particular statement of the catechism has a level of authority based on its original source. So, for example there are many aspects of Catholic social teaching that are open for debate -eg "Just war"; or "the death penalty". And some that are not eg "Euthanasia".
In any case, the point is this. Kiko is not speaking on behalf of the Magisterium in the transcripts that became his "directory". These are private teachings that may or may not reflect the teaching of the Church. In order to give a greater doctrinal security to these statements that may or may not reflect the teaching of the Church, the Vatican insisted on including references to the Catechism. But these references do not mean that now Kiko's statements are infallible.
"All teachings and doctrines of the Church are infallible truths in that they contain the teachings of faith and morals. The Catechetical Directory of the NCW is the same way. It contains the catechesis of faith and morals."
Wrong. Look. It. Up.
Your logic and belief about these things would be laughable if they weren't so scary.
Dear Anonymous at 11:42 am,
DeleteYou did not answer my question. Again.......infallibility means the inability to make errors or mistakes especially in matters of morals and faith.
You specifically stated (capitalization is mine): "The catechism is not one of these. Of course it contains infallible pronouncements, BUT IT ALSO CONTAINS MUCH THAT IS NOT INFALLIBLE.
So, my question was.....show me one example you have found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that you say is NOT infallible (in error). Before we even address the Catechetical Directory of the NCW approved by the Holy See, let us first settle this about the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Where is one example that you find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that you find to be in error (not infallible)???
Dear Diana,
Deleteyour first mistake is to understand that something that is "non-infallible" = error.
Sometimes I wonder how you function at all when you make such basic mistakes of logic. If something is "fallible" it simply means that there is a possibility of "error" - not that it is in fact "error".
So before we even address your question - can you finally understand this (oh so subtle) issue? If not, we're not going to get very far....
So, there is much in the CCC that consists of statements that have not been pronounced by the Church as infallible teachings? Ok? Can you understand that?
I gave you a couple of examples - the just war; and the death penalty. Lets see what the CCC says about the death penalty:
"2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
Notice how the language leaves the question open to debate?
There are many. many similar teachings of the Church, that are not considered "infallible". But as Cardinal Ratzinger said, we must take the Catechism as a whole, and treat it as the authoritative utterance of the Magisterium.
We don't need to do that for Kiko's books though, even with references to the CCC included. Because they are not authoritative utterances of the Magisterium, and each statement he makes must be considered on its individual merits, and must be justified by recourse to the proper teaching of the Church.
Dear Anonymous at 4:02 pm,
DeleteBecause this discussion is deviating away from the OP, you can find my response in the following weblink:
http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2015/02/infallibility.html
Dear Diana, have you ever read the papal encyclicals Pascendi Dominici Gregis; Lamentabili sane exitu and Humani Generis?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 2:46 pm,
DeleteNo, I have not read the encyclical.
Thanks for your reply. That actually explains quite a lot. Can I recommend that you do so? Perhaps you can give your impressions of them afterwards.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:06 pm,
DeleteCan you provide a weblink?
Yes, with great pleasure:
Deletehttp://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html
http://papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
I sincerely hope you do read these in full
I'll bet your catechists and presbyters have never read these important Church documents too. Its not surprising they have no idea what the Church actually is.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 3:30 pm,
DeleteOn the contrary, I am sure that many of them do. After all, many of them has finished their degree in the Laterian University of Rome. They simply follow the way the Church interprets it rather than the way you interpret it to be.
"They simply follow the way the Church interprets it rather than the way you interpret it to be."
DeleteSimply, huh? And you know this because ... ?
You've already admitted you've never read them. And how do you know how I "interpret it to be"? In any case, these documents don't lend themselves to misinterpretation, which you would know if you had read them. Which you haven't. And neither have your catechists and priests probably.
Dear Anonymous at 4:45 pm,
DeleteI read them when you provided the weblink. The thing is......what makes you so sure we are the enemy????
"what makes you so sure we are the enemy"
DeleteOh let's see:
The violation of the person (the internal forum)
The negation of the Church's tradition - particularly in relation to devotions
A protestant theology of the Eucharist
The co-opting of Catholic language without the commensurate meaning eg
using the name "Redemptoris Mater" but mocking the rosary.
Ostracising and cutting off those who leave the community
Attempting to alter the structure of the parish
The assertion that the Church was wrong
A complete misunderstanding of the role of obedience, and along with that a sense in which the intellect is proposed to be "of the devil".
The fanatical devotion to all things Kiko
The wilful disobedience to the lawful authority of the Church particularly in relation to the Mass
The political manipulations of the NCW in the Church and elsewhere
The consistent use of bad logic, false dichotomy and strawman arguments eg "your children are an idol"; Natural religiosity
Distortion on the teachings of heaven, hell and purgatory
Interpretations of scripture that have no precedent in the Church and are at odds with those of the Fathers and Doctors of the faith eg "Jesus will put mud in your eye -Pah!"
The secret catechesis documents in a Church where no teaching is ever secret
An undermining of the History of the Catholic Church
The double decker tabernacles and the quote that "Jesus is sacramentally present in the scriptures"
The fact that a family can be broken up and only rarely celebrate Mass together in the NCW - ie the community becomes the new family
The community becomes an idol
In the scrutinies, young people are exposed to the sexual and other serious sins of the adults - they are expected to answer how the Way has saved them even though they may never have experienced anything else; they must "hold their sin" before them even though they may never have committed serious sin; they must not "come down from their cross", even though their "cross" may have been something determined by the catechist when they were thirteen and they've grown up since then; they are implicitly encouraged to commit serious sin because then they can say that the NCW saved them from it - ie serious sin is applauded in the way, provided that the sinner stays in the way - it just shows how great the "Way" is.
Questions are discouraged, and there is no opportunity for public dialogue.
Each testimony is a carbon copy
Each member must have the same existential experience as Kiko, and every step of the NCW is designed to do this
You kneel before Kiko when you "stand up", but you don't kneel before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.
It is impossible for a member of the faithful to receive communion on the tongue licitly in a NCW eucharist, even though the Church has made a solemn pronouncement that no-one should ever deprive the faithful of that opportunity.
That will do for now. There is more of course, but this is just off the top of my head
If you had really read these documents, you would start to get an idea of what the Church truly teaches. Compare the language of these papal teachings - their emphasis, their awareness of the intrusion of un-Catholic sentiment into the theology and practise of the Church etc - with the language of Kiko and the practises he encourages. The more you read and understand these sort of documents, as well as the writings of the saints, (Thomas Aquinas; Teresa of Avila; Hildegard; Don Bosco; and so on) the more you will appreciate what the critics of the NCW are on about. Kiko doesn't want you to do this of course, which is why the Church of the period from Nicea to Vatican II is mocked and denigrated as indulging "Pagan accretions". And why you can't ask questions. And why "obedience" is soooo important to them.
Dear Anonymous at 11:16 am,
DeleteThe NCW is not guilty of all those things you listed. We have already told you that we can celebrate the Eucharist in small communities. It is approved in our Statutes. We already told you that we have the permission of the Pope to consume the Body of Christ sitting down. We are not guilty of any of the things you listed. It is not my problem that you chose to believe the other side.
Dear Diana,
ReplyDeleteRe yours of February 17, 2015 at 12:29 PM and AnonymousFebruary 14, 2015 at 1:46 PM
"The Our Father is not sung in Latin, but in the vernacular. I also do not see any comment saying that the microphone was turned off while the Pope began the Our Father prayer in Latin."
Hopes this clarifies:
One of the commenters on
"WHAT ABOUT JOHN PAUL II'S 1988 NEO CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARIST?" on Junglewatch caught the interruption of Pope John Paul's Our Father in Latin in the NCW Mass video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_7UmiipNo
He/she said "You may want to verify in the video (from 1h 51min)."
I did want to verify; and, it is so.
Sincerely,
Let me explain how these jungle people work. First they say there is no way that the pope knows what is really going on in NCW liturgy. Next they see that a pope not only celebrated NCW Mass but also sent people out to spread it. Then they panic. Their myopic vision of the church is shattered and so they scramble to find ways to show how evil the NCW really is in order to preserve their own bigot view. "They turn off the pope's microphone. They did not pray the our father in Latin. It happened in 1988 (when not only did we consume seated but also received seated)" never mind that they are ignorant of what the pope said in the homily. Never mind that they are ignorant of how similar "padre nostro" and "pater noster" sound so that you can't tell the difference until you get to nosTER and by then the only thing you hear the person next to you Microphone or not. Truth is irrelevant to these people. They only care about their agenda. I hope that they don't realize, but I think their leaders do, that this agenda is to ultimately discredit the pope not the NCW.
ReplyDeleteRE:DianaFebruary 17, 2015 at 8:57 AM
ReplyDelete"The echoes are not recorded due to the fact that these are personal testimonies from the brothers."
Yesterday, a lady told me she hadn't gone to Mass for a long time. She said she felt uncomfortable about participating..... being asked to add to the homily was extremely foreign to her.(among other things.)
Hence she's been staying home - feeling distraught.
I realized that she had gone to a NCW Mass.
I wish to comment on just one of the alterations to the NCW Mass that has no recognitio (written permission for "recognition" within the Mass.)
Diana, in your comment above "personal testimonies" were not made available to the public in the recorded Mass with the Pope. If the NCW Mass is "open" to all as it should be, should not their echoes "personal" be included? I wonder if these echoes are too much horizontal (in the interest of man) rather than vertical (in the interest of Jesus?) A NCW member told me she hates the "echoes" - a lot of irrelevant info shared and definitely not in the Roman Missal or GIRM.
Recently, Pope Francis met with the Priests from Rome (Feb 19) for two hours or so to discuss the Mass -.
He gave instructions on "how it should be celebrated."
I wonder.......
Dear Anonymous at 12:30 am,
DeleteWhat is your purpose of going to the Mass? Is it not to listen to the word of God and to receive Communion? Anyone is welcome in the Mass including the Eucharist of the NCW. They are there to listen to the word of God and to receive communion as in all Mass.
I do not know of anyone who would hate the "echos" of the brothers. A person "echos" because he/she has been touched by the readings, and is able to relate those readings to what is happening in his/her life.
Dear Anonymous of Feb 19 1201PM
ReplyDeleteYou state: "Next they see that a pope not only celebrated NCW Mass but also sent people out to spread it."
A Pope celebrated one Mass with them; and, never at the Vatican even though thousands come to Rome to receive a "blessing" as they go out into the world to spread the Word of God on mission. The blessing is not to spread the illicit Mass, but to spread the Gospel. And, I commend them for that! But, the NCW are still saying their "Mass" is approved. Saying so, doesn't mean it is so.
You say " Truth is irrelevant to these people."
Well, Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." Truth is very important to this people, so much so, that when they see a distortion to the Truth, they try to rectify it through dialogue. It is not an agenda; it is an act of charity.
You say, "I hope that they don't realize, but I think their leaders do, that this agenda is to ultimately discredit the pope not the NCW."
I could not believe that you would say such an awful, untrue thing.
Truth will prevail. On February 19/15 the Pope met with the priests from Rome to discuss the way Mass should be celebrated. I trust that included those of the NCW. Irregardless, questions were allowed from the priests during this two-hour-or-so meeting. Was there any priest brave enough to question the Pope about recognitio (written permission) for the manner in which the NCW celebrates the Mass? Since there is so much controversy about this Mass with all its additions and deletions, I would think at least one priest (Neo or non-neo) would have asked.
Perhaps, we will have an answer soon. Then, we finally will be able to push this division aside and work together as ONE BODY.
Just wanted to say: Truth is important whether from the NCW blog or the Junglewatch. Falsehoods and snide remarks are found on both sites and are totally anti-Christ. Pray for discernment and reconciliation. May we all be ONE.
ReplyDeleteRE: Diana February 23, 2015 at 9:48 AM
ReplyDeleteYou said "What is your purpose of going to the Mass? Is it not to listen to the word of God and to receive Communion? Anyone is welcome in the Mass including the Eucharist of the NCW. They are there to listen to the word of God and to receive communion as in all Mass."
Anyone wishing to receive Communion on the tongue is not welcomed at the NCW Mass. Therefore, the NCW Mass is divisive. Not only are they not welcomed at their Mass, they are also not welcomed at their meetings/Bible studies because are they considered threats to the Way the NCW does things.
You said, "I do not know of anyone who would hate the "echos" of the brothers. A person "echos" because he/she has been touched by the readings, and is able to relate those readings to what is happening in his/her life. "
Reasons?? for hating echoes?
I'm just relating what this person said. But I know this person knows the NCW Mass has not been approved, but goes like many others. Many of the members are spouseless - lonely and in need to be with people.
Dear Anonymous at 6:24 pm,
DeleteYou are only making "receiving communion on the tongue" an issue. After all, it does not seem to bother you that those in the Traditional Latin Mass prefer receiving communion on the tongue rather on the hand. The only ones who should make this an issue is a person who has no arms. But when you have two hands, I see no reason why this is even an issue.
How do you or this person know that the NCW Mass has not been approve????? Because Tim Rohr says so?? We already have the permission of the Pope. Whether you believe this or not is not my problem. If your friend feels uncomfortable in the NCW Mass and hates the echos, then by all means, he/she can always go to the parish Mass or the Traditional Latin Mass. He/she can even go to a Byzantine Mass. They're still the same Mass.
"But when you have two hands, I see no reason why this is even an issue. "
DeleteAnd this is more proof that you are not truly Catholic. The Church has made it plain that no-one, even if they are a Bishop or a priest, is entitled to prevent the faithful from taking communion on the tongue. How many times has ben pointed out to you? As many times as you have ignored it
Dear Anonymous at 9:27 pm,
DeleteThat is not what the Catholic Church says. It says that a person can EITHER take communion on the tongue or the hands. The Catholic Church also says that it is acceptable to take the blood of Christ through a spoon the way the Eastern Catholics does. The person is the one to follow the Church. The Church is NOT the one to follow the person. If God tells you one thing, are you going to tell Him that you prefer to do it YOUR way?? This shows that we are truly Catholic. We follow what the Church says rather than what one individual wants.
What did you learn growing up??? Were you not taught to follow Christ and His Church??? Or were you taught that Christ and His Church is supposed to follow YOU. If the Church tells you to do it this way, then that is what you do. That is the Catholic way.
Why do we have to argue about these things that care clearly taught?
DeletePlease read the following: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-a-bishop-prohibit-receiving-communion-on-the-tongue
And note this especially:
"By law, it is a right of the faithful to receive on the tongue, and the faithful must not have their rights denied."
"We follow what the Church says rather than what one individual wants. "
So, are you going to follow what the Church says and admit you are wrong about this one too?
There is also this:
Delete"Mother Teresa reportedly said, "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand." Even the great Pope John Paul II reportedly said: "There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it.”
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/truth-about-communion-in-hand-while.html
Dear Anonymous at 10:01 pm,
DeleteYes, we are following the Church. According to the instructions in the Redemptionis Sacramentum:
"Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.
[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her."
In other words, a bishops conference must apply for an indult to allow Communion in the hand. It is also up to the bishop or priest to decide if there is a danger or a sacrilege during communion. In the NCW Mass, there would be a danger and sacrilege if one were to take communion by tongue. Why? 1) Because the priest has not yet received communion and 2) the faithful can choke on the Body of Christ as it is not the kind of host that easily dissolves in the mouth. We are not denying the Catholic faithful to receive communion by tongue. We are simply making certain that there is no danger and sacrilege done to the Body of Christ or to the Catholic faithful.
Dear Anonymous at 10:03 pm,
DeleteI highly recommend that you read this about Mother Teresa's statement:
http://www.motherteresa.org/08_info/receivingc.html
Dear Diana at 5.47. You are correct that communion in the hand is granted under an indult. The conditions of the that indult are laid down in the "Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion" - Memoriale Domini. You can read it yourself here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM
Deletebut I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before on your blog.
Anyway, the important section of that document, for the purposes of the discussion here and particularly in relation to your statement that "In the NCW Mass, there would be a danger and sacrilege if one were to take communion by tongue", is this:
"1. The new method of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage"
Now, you are saying that the NCW does exactly this. And this is why it is objectionable. You cannot have permission for this as it would contradict the clear instruction given in relation to the indult.
Dear Anonymous at 10:34 am,
DeleteWe do have permission for it because the bread we make is not going to dissolve in your tongue. Please use common sense. The Vatican is not going to allow us to go ahead and make unleavened bread and then not give us permission to take communion by hand only. It would be ridiculous to receive communion by tongue when the whole piece cannot even fit in your mouth.
It may seem ridiculous to you, but you need to understand that the indult for communion in the hand is given on the condition that it is not imposed in a way that makes communion on the tongue impossible. The simple solution would be for the priest to have his communion prior to the communion of the faithful, and for smaller portions to be given if one should elect to receive on the tongue.
DeleteThe important thing to remember is that it is not lawful for the Mass to be conducted in such a way that prevents a member of the faithful from having communion on the tongue if they so choose.
By the way, all communion wafers ( in the Roman Rite) are "unleavened bread" aren't they? Why do you speak as though only the NCW use "unleavened bread"?
Dear Anonymous at 1:00 pm,
DeleteYou are only making receiving communion on the tongue an issue and a cause for division. If you are insistent on taking communion only on the tongue, then go to the Tridentine Latin Mass. In that Mass, they only allow communion by the tongue. A person who wants to take communion by the hand at the Tridentine Latin Mass is not allowed to.
Dear Diana, it is not me, but the Church that is making "communion on the tongue an issue" as you put it. I still don't think you understand this concept. The normal way to receive communion is on the tongue. There are special permissions given by the Holy See so that individual Bishops' conferences can request an indult, meaning that communion on the hand can be given, **but only if it means that any one of the faithful is not denied the opportunity to have communion on the tongue**
DeleteThe Church does not give the same assurance about communion on the hand. In other words, the Church does not say that the individual member of the faithful has an absolute right to communion-in-the-hand, as it gives for communion on the tongue.
In the Neocatechumenal Way Eucharist, there is no possibility for an individual member of the faithful to legally receive communion on the tongue, and in this way it violates the clear instruction of the Church. Given that the NCW Mass is supposedly "open to all the faithful", you have no right to tell people they should "go to the Latin Mass if you don't like it".
Dear Diana at 1.00pm, you didn't answer the question about "unleavened bread"?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:56 pm,
DeleteWhere did I say that the NCW is the only one who uses unleavened bread???????? I said that the bread we use does not dissolve on your tongue. Chewing is actually required when consuming the Body of Christ In the NCW. So, where did I say that the NCW is the only one that uses unleavened bread????
Dear Anonymous at 2:55 pm,
DeleteJesus and the Apostles never practice communion on the tongue. Communion on the hand came first. Communion on the tongue came later and became a standard. The church already said that communion by hand is acceptable.
Perhaps the problem here is that you think that receiving communion is a right. It is not a right. It is actually a privilege. We already have the permission of the Vatican to do the Eucharist the way we have been practicing. The Way is not for everyone. If the Way makes you feel uncomfortable especially in receiving communion, then it is not for you.
If you feel that what the NCW is doing is wrong, you are always welcome to write to the Nuncio and make your complaint. But do not waste my time repeating what I and many NCW members have been saying . Do not make an issue what the Church has already given us permission to do. Just simply write your letter to the Nuncio and wait for their response.
You said "The Vatican is not going to allow us to go ahead and make unleavened bread and then not give us permission to take communion by hand only" which implies that the "go-ahead" from the Vatican was for you to use "unleavened bread". Of course that's silly, because in the ROman Rite all hosts are "unleavened bread".
DeleteWhich leaves the question - what on earth were you meaning in your previous statement?
Dear Anonymous at 4:09 pm,
DeleteI was referring to the unleavened bread that does not dissolve on your tongue. That was a go-ahead from the Vatican to use communion by hand because the unleavened bread we break usually comes in medium or large pieces rather than very tiny pieces. The size of the bread comes in a certain size, and we celebratein small communities.......meaning the pieces we get from the Body of Christ are not very tiny pieces.
Dear Diana at 4.08pm.
Delete"Jesus and the Apostles never practice communion on the tongue"
Really? You know that for sure do you? The Apostles were bishops anyway, and all priests have the privilege of the ordained to touch the Sacred Species. So, you first argument comes to nought, Diana.
Next.
"Perhaps the problem here is that you think that receiving communion is a right"
The Church has made it abundantly clear that to receive communion on the tongue is the right of every member of the faithful who has no impediment to receive communion. And in fact, if Holy communion was merely a "privilege" it would be totally unfair of Our Lord to say that "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you". Of course, you must be a Catholic in good conscience and free from serious sin. So, strike two Diana.
"We already have the permission of the Vatican to do the Eucharist the way we have been practicing."
No, you don't. That is a lie and you know it. The Vatican may not have pulled you up on it yet, but that is quite different to "having permission". If you had permission you could show it - but you can't so you don't. Strike three.
"If you feel that what the NCW is doing is wrong, you are always welcome to write to the Nuncio and make your complaint. But do not waste my time repeating what I and many NCW members have been saying . Do not make an issue what the Church has already given us permission to do. Just simply write your letter to the Nuncio and wait for their response. "
You wish. I and many others will continue to ask these legitimate questions every time a stupid answer is given. Not because we don't like you, or have an axe to grind, or anything like that - but because we love the Church, we love Jesus Christ who gives us the Church and we value Truth and the beauty and goodness of the revealed Truth.
Dear Anonymous at 4:48 pm,
DeleteYes, Jesus and the Apostles did not make any unleavened bread that automatically dissolves in the tongue. As a matter of fact, they reclined at the table during the Passover meal.
No matter what I say, you have already labeled me a liar. Your mind is made up. You are not here to have an honest dialogue. The fact that we never hid our celebration and that it is over the Internet shows that we are not lying. If we truly are lying about having permission from the Vatican, our Eucharistic celebrations would not be all over the Internet for the entire world (including the Vatican) to see. We are not afraid to hide the way we celebrate the Eucharist because we have nothing to fear due to the fact that we already have the Pope's permission.
Rather than calling us liars, why don't you simply write your complaint to the Nuncio or the Vatican, and wait for their response. If you really love the Church, then write your letter to the Vatican. Do not tell the NCW what to do because you are not the Pope.
"If we truly are lying about having permission from the Vatican, our Eucharistic celebrations would not be all over the Internet for the entire world (including the Vatican) to see"
DeleteUm, the only reason it is "all over the internet" is because someone was sloppy at a wedding and let it be videotaped. This was then shown on a certain blog site. You know, as do we all, that the NCW are instructed not to allow the distribution of communion to be caught on video. If it was so commonplace and normal, why is it so hard to find?
And yes, I call you a liar, no because of pre-judgement, but because you persist in this fiction about permission, when you know that permission for varying the liturgy is never, ever verbal.
Dear Anonymous at 8:44 pm,
DeleteWhat you say is not true. No one ever told me not to videotape the Eucharistic celebration. In fact, I have a video of the Eucharstic celebration. The only thing I was told is not to record the echoes. As for that wedding video, that is not the only video on the Internet. :)
"Yes, Jesus and the Apostles did not make any unleavened bread that automatically dissolves in the tongue. As a matter of fact, they reclined at the table during the Passover meal. "
DeleteYou seem to imply here that the Mass is nothing more than the re-enactment of the Passover meal. If so, you are wrong once again. It wouldn't surprise me if this is what you are taught, but it is not the Catholic position. Also, once again, the Apostles were bishops. You are other laity, are not.
Dear Anonymous at 8:51 pm,
DeleteThe Mass is both a sacrifice and a meal. Both the bishops, priests, and laity celebrate the Mass as BOTH a sacrifice and a meal just as the Early Christians did. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 1328 The inexhaustible richness of this sacrament is expressed in the different names we give it. Each name evokes certain aspects of it. It is called:
Eucharist, because it is an action of thanksgiving to God. The Greek words eucharistein and eulogein recall the Jewish blessings that proclaim - especially during a meal - God's works: creation, redemption, and sanctification.
CCC 1329 The Lord's Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem.
The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meal when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread, above all at the Last Supper. It is by this action that his disciples will recognize him after his Resurrection, and it is this expression that the first Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies; by doing so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him.
The Eucharistic assembly (synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, the visible expression of the Church.
Dear Diana at 9.32pm, that is not the point I was making. Your constant reference to what Jesus and the Apostles did at the Last Supper indicates a deficiency in your understanding of the Mass. Certainly the sacrament of the Eucharist was initiated at that event, but the Mass is the re-presentation of Calvary, which obviously did not occur in the upper room.
DeleteFor a start, you missed these points:
1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.
The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. the terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,148 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.
The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church's whole liturgy finds its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the Sacrament of sacraments. the Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name.
1331 Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body.149 We also call it: the holy things (ta hagia; sancta)150 - the first meaning of the phrase "communion of saints" in the Apostles' Creed - the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality,151 viaticum....
1332 Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God's will in their daily lives.
"At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).
John A. O’Brien, writing in The Faith of Millions, said, "The manner in which the sacrifices are offered is alone different: On the cross Christ really shed his blood and was really slain; in the Mass, however, there is no real shedding of blood, no real death; but the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine symbolizes the separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon the cross. The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to individual human souls. All the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from the sacrifice of Calvary" (306).
Lets read that last line again:
"All the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from the sacrifice of Calvary"
"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26).
But Jesus did not die at the Last Supper.
You are taught by the NCW that in communion you should do what Jesus did with the Apostles at the Last Supper, hence you "recline", and you "take with you own hands" the Blessed Sacrament. You mistake the heavenly banquet promised to be consumated in the future, for the meal-like passover ceremony. There is partial truth here - but it distorts the full truth. And in this way, consciously or not, you separate yourself from the Catholic faith thoughout the ages. It is very sad.
Dear Anonymous at 9:59 pm,
DeleteI stated in my previous reply that the Mass is BOTH a sacrifice and a meal. What is about the word "BOTH" that you do not understand? The NCW recognize that the Mass is both a sacrifice and a meal because both are mentioned in the Catechism. Perhaps, you should ask yourself why you only see the sacrifice when the Catholic Church mentioned both a sacrifice and a meal.
I don't understand if this guy who questions receiving hands vs mouth really doesn't understand the practice or if he is being facetious and creating disunity. if he is looking for clarification then he should accept that different groups choose different styles available. All missionaries of charity receive on the tongue because they choose to as directed by their founder. All ncw liturgies offer on the hand as directed by their founder. Both are allowed. For the sake of cohesiveness in the particular liturgy each chooses the way that is better. If this guy now takes this comment apart and does not answer it as a whole or retorts by attacking kiko and carmen then we know he is only interested in dismembering the church and not building it up. If he can accept, as the hierarchy of the church accepts, that both methods are valid, then we can lay discussion to rest.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:33 pm,
DeleteI agree with you here. I think he is more interested in forcing his way of doing communion rather than accepting that both ways are valid in the Church. Therefore this discussion is laid to rest. The truth is the Catholic Church accepts both ways. Those who wish to have communion strictly by the tongue can attend the Latin Mass. The Latin Mass is not for everyone. In the same way, the NCW is not for everyone.
Dear Anon at 10.33. "This guy" would first of all point you to the teaching of the Church. Lets see if there is something here you disagree with or you can point out as being incorrect:
Delete1. The Church law is that communion should be received on the tongue
2. However, the Church also provides an "indult" (a special permission) where requested by a bishop's conference, for the faithful to receive communion in the hand.
3. The indult is given on the condition that "communion on the tongue" is not denied to anyone that wishes to receive that way - and that the distribution of communion in the Mass is conducted in such a way that allows for communion on the tongue should one wish to receive that way.
4. In other words, it is not simply a "choice" of either hand or tongue, because the Church guarantees the reception by tongue, but does not guarantee the reception by hand.
5. The NCW conduct the distribution of communion in such a way as to make licit communion on the tongue impossible.
6. The NCW disobeys the Church law and instruction in this regard.
It may be the "normal" and "accepted" method in the NCW to receive by hand, but given that the NCW masses are meant to be "open to all the faithful" according to their statues, the NCW must allow for those that wish to receive on the tongue.
So, nothing about kiko and Carmen (sorry to disappoint you).
Dear Anonymous at 10:42 am,
DeleteThe new GIRM, in its directives for distributing Communion, states,
The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. . . . The priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (the body of Christ). The communicant replies Amen and receives the sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. (160–161)
Notice that it now says that the consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. However, in some cases, the bishop or priest can deny communion by tongue in special cases such as in England when the country went through a mad cow epidemic. In the case with the NCW, it would be a grave abuse to receive communion on the tongue because the priest has not yet taken communion.
Dear Diana, I was actually responding to Anon, but I will address your comments now.
DeleteThe "new GIRM" presumably is the English version for the United States? In the US the Bishop's conference has asked for, and received, the indult.
Also, it is rather rich of you to be quoting the GIRM which in the same paragraph you quote (161) it says "As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely." You don't do that, do you?
In any event, because the GIRM of the US includes the adaptations in relation to the indult for communion in the hand, it is important to note a certain phrase of what you have quoted:
"at the discretion of each communicant"
Not at the discretion of the group; nor the discretion of the Bishop; nor the presbyter (except in those extreme cases as you point out)
No - it is at the discretion of the communicant. Which means that if I were to attend a NCW Eucharist, which I am entitled to do (as it is apparently part of the Sunday liturgical actions of the parish, and is "open to all the faithful"), I ought to be able to choose to receive communion on the tongue.
You have just confirmed however, that this would be impossible - in fact, that it would be a grave abuse. This violates my choice as laid down in the GIRM.
And that is the problem. Thankyou
Dear Anonymous at 11:45 am,
DeleteAnd I will say again that we already have the permission of the Vatican to celebrate the Eucharist the way we celebrate it. Whether you believe that is not my problem. If you feel that we are doing the wrong thing, simply write to the Nuncio or to the Vatican and wait for their response. How we celebrate the Eucharist is not a problem due to the fact that you do not even attend the NCW Eucharist anyway.
So, that is what is called a non-answer. After all this discussion - after having finally shown you the truth of what I have been claiming in the last twenty posts - after having had to guide you step by step through what the Church actually teaches....the best you can do is resort to this non-answer about how "you have permission".
DeleteWell, show the permission, if that is all you can rely on. If rational thought doesn't help you. If analysing the teaching of the Church can't help your argument. If all you have left is this "assertion" that you have been told you "have permission", then you are obliged to ask the people who told you this, to produce the permission.
This is why the Archbishop said "And it’s somewhere I need to find out where exactly". Because he knows that it should be available - that the Church doesn't work by verbal permissions.
So, if you wish to rely on this defense, produce the permission. Otherwise, we will continue to call you liars and deceivers.
Dear Anonymous at 1:51 pm,
DeleteI have cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I have stated that we believe that the Mass is both a sacrifice and a meal, and cited the Catechism showing that the Mass resembled the Passover feast Christ had with His Apostles, in which He told His Apostles to "do this in memory of Him." All you ever say is tell me that the Mass is also a sacrifice, which is something I did not disagree with you. Yet, you claim that you have the true teachings of the Catholic Church.
As I said before, we already have the permission from the Vatican. The fact that you do not believe us is your problem. Therefore, I highly recommend that you make your complaint to the Nuncio or the Vatican rather than to us. You can continue to call me a liar and a deceiver all you want. That does not bother me. I heard with my own ears what Father Pius said in 2008. He gave us new instructions on how to receive the Body of Christ, and that these instructions came from Kiko who also received these same instructions from the Pope. If I am not mistaken, he was probably reading the instructions to us. So somewhere, these instructions were written down from the Vatican. It is simply a matter of finding it. In the meantime, write your letter to the Nuncio and wait for their response.
"Simply a matter of finding it." If it's so simple, why is it so hard to produce?
DeleteDiana - you say it's a grave abuse to receive communion on the tongue because the priest has not yet taken communion. Isn't the priest supposed to take communion before he gives it?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:12 pm,
DeleteBecause it was misplaced.
@11:19 pm: In the NCW, we take communion together with the priest.